Here's the link to the full story:
http://news.aol.com/article/filmmaker-eye-camera/378049
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Man to Shoot Film With Camera in Eye
Man to Shoot Film With Camera in Eye
A film maker had to have one of his eyes removed as a result of a childhood shooting accident. He is now working with engineers to design a camera inside of a prosthetic eye and make a film. The fake eye is intended to move along with the real eye by muscle control. Subjects will be filmed without their knowledge, but permission must be obtained if they are used in the film.
The implications are enormous:
1) The most obvious is one of privacy. This is not a new issue.
When you meet someone, you have an expectation of privacy.
You don't expect a "cyborg" that will remember everything and have
the ability to play back everything you just said, though I'm sure
lawyers would love to have that ability for their clients.
Covert filming is not a new problem, but camera placement usually
was in eyeglasses or a bag or briefcase.
2) The other big issue is how long before they can connect camera output
to the rest of the body systems? They talk about eventually restoring
vision to blind people, but I'm sure true vision connected to the optic nerve
is decades away.
3) One more issue I have actually thought about before is "recording your life history".
A first-person point of view of your entire life. No more forgetting.
Just play it back. Memory is now cheap enough that you could actually
consider recording your entire waking life. It would only take a few TeraByte,
depending on what compression you would be willing to settle on.
I'm OK not filming while I'm asleep. I was shocked the other day in Costco
when I saw an 1.0 TB external USB hard drive for $140 dollars!
A film maker had to have one of his eyes removed as a result of a childhood shooting accident. He is now working with engineers to design a camera inside of a prosthetic eye and make a film. The fake eye is intended to move along with the real eye by muscle control. Subjects will be filmed without their knowledge, but permission must be obtained if they are used in the film.
The implications are enormous:
1) The most obvious is one of privacy. This is not a new issue.
When you meet someone, you have an expectation of privacy.
You don't expect a "cyborg" that will remember everything and have
the ability to play back everything you just said, though I'm sure
lawyers would love to have that ability for their clients.
Covert filming is not a new problem, but camera placement usually
was in eyeglasses or a bag or briefcase.
2) The other big issue is how long before they can connect camera output
to the rest of the body systems? They talk about eventually restoring
vision to blind people, but I'm sure true vision connected to the optic nerve
is decades away.
3) One more issue I have actually thought about before is "recording your life history".
A first-person point of view of your entire life. No more forgetting.
Just play it back. Memory is now cheap enough that you could actually
consider recording your entire waking life. It would only take a few TeraByte,
depending on what compression you would be willing to settle on.
I'm OK not filming while I'm asleep. I was shocked the other day in Costco
when I saw an 1.0 TB external USB hard drive for $140 dollars!
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Lexus 2010 RX : Heads Up Display (HUD)
Well it's finally here: Jet Fighter cockpit technology in a car - a Heads Up Display (HUD)
It was only a matter of time, and of course in a high-end car.
I saw a TV commercial for a 2010 Lexus RX HUD which described the
ability of the driver to not have to take his or her eyes off the road.
The commercial didn't do a good job of showing what a HUD was though.
Here's a link to some video online showing the car speed on display in the windshield.
http://thepassionatepursuit.com/2009/03/02/video-of-the-lexus-heads-up-display/
It's supposed to be safer, but it seems distracting to me.
I guess you get used to it (I hope).
It was only a matter of time, and of course in a high-end car.
I saw a TV commercial for a 2010 Lexus RX HUD which described the
ability of the driver to not have to take his or her eyes off the road.
The commercial didn't do a good job of showing what a HUD was though.
Here's a link to some video online showing the car speed on display in the windshield.
http://thepassionatepursuit.com/2009/03/02/video-of-the-lexus-heads-up-display/
It's supposed to be safer, but it seems distracting to me.
I guess you get used to it (I hope).
Friday, March 6, 2009
Calif. Bill Would Blur Online Mapping Programs
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2342397,00.asp
Calif. Bill Would Blur Online Mapping Programs
This is something that I has been a "concern" of mine for quite a while.
> Assemblyman Joel Anderson, a Republican, crafted the bill
> after it was revealed that terrorists in Israel and Mumbai
> used popular mapping programs to help plot their attacks.
Not just terrorism, but privacy in general. You can get a satellite
picture of not just your own home, but somebody else's.
We have created a new form of virtual stalking.
Some of the mapping services do obscure or have outdated
photos of government sites. The last time I looked at
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. (the White House), the photo was
clearly at least 10 years old. I guess there's no point in
obscuring the White House as most anybody who wants
it can get photo/video data on it (just not up to date).
What is left unsaid in this article is that SOMEONE has the
unobscured photos. So while the "Internet cloud" may not
eventually get access to sensitive photos, Big Brother will still have it.
So much for privacy.
I have attached a JPG of two of my neighbors pools.
I have noticed that you rarely/barely see people in satellite photos.
I'm guessing there are higher resolution pictures available and automated
software that removes people before the lower resolution pictures are posted.
So much for fences.
Calif. Bill Would Blur Online Mapping Programs
This is something that I has been a "concern" of mine for quite a while.
> Assemblyman Joel Anderson, a Republican, crafted the bill
> after it was revealed that terrorists in Israel and Mumbai
> used popular mapping programs to help plot their attacks.
Not just terrorism, but privacy in general. You can get a satellite
picture of not just your own home, but somebody else's.
We have created a new form of virtual stalking.
Some of the mapping services do obscure or have outdated
photos of government sites. The last time I looked at
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. (the White House), the photo was
clearly at least 10 years old. I guess there's no point in
obscuring the White House as most anybody who wants
it can get photo/video data on it (just not up to date).
What is left unsaid in this article is that SOMEONE has the
unobscured photos. So while the "Internet cloud" may not
eventually get access to sensitive photos, Big Brother will still have it.
So much for privacy.
I have attached a JPG of two of my neighbors pools.
I have noticed that you rarely/barely see people in satellite photos.
I'm guessing there are higher resolution pictures available and automated
software that removes people before the lower resolution pictures are posted.
So much for fences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)